Even after the First Crusade, the situat_Rashi

France had remained favorable. It did not perceptibly change as

a result of the various local disorders marking the Second

Crusade. Nevertheless, the second half of the twelfth century

witnessed the uprise of accusations of ritual murder and

piercings of the host. Popular hatred and mistrust were

exploited by the greedy kings. Philip Augustus expelled the Jews

from his domain in 1181, though he recalled them in 1198. Yet

the example had been set, and the security of the Jews was done

for. The lords and bishops united to persecute them, destroy

their literary treasures, and paralyze their intellectual

efforts. They found the right king for their purposes in St.

Louis, a curious mixture of tolerance and bigotry, of charity and

fanaticism. "St. Louis sought to deprive the Jews of the book

which in all their trials was their supreme consolation, the

refuge of their souls against outside clamor and suffering, the

only safeguard of their morality, and the bond maintaining their

religious oneness - the Talmud." In 1239 an apostate, Nicholas

Donin, of La Rochelle, denounced the Talmud to Gregory IX. The

Pope ordered the seizure of all copies, and an investigation of

the book. In France the mandate was obeyed, and a disputation

took place at Paris. Naturally, the Talmud was condemned, and

twenty - four cartloads of Hebrew books were consigned to the

flames. The auto-da-fe of 1242 marks the decadence of an

entire literature, the ruin of brilliant schools, and the check

to the movement so gloriously inaugurated by Rashi. All the

living forces of French Judaism were deeply affected.

But the fall was neither complete nor sudden. It was not until

1306 that the Jews were exiled from France by Philip the Fair,

and a hundred thousand persons had to leave the country in which

their nation had long flourished and to whose prosperity they had

materially contributed.

The expulsion of 1306 withdrew French Judaism to the provinces

directly attached to the crown. In vain were the Jews recalled

in 1315 "at the general cry of the people." Only a very few

profited by the tolerance shown them. After that their existence

was troubled by riots, and broken in upon by expulsions. The

schools, of old so flourishing, fell into a state of utter decay.

About 1360 France could not count six Jewish scholars, and the

works of the time show to what degree of degradation rabbinical

studies had sunk. With the expulsion of 1394 Charles VI dealt

the finishing stroke. Thereafter French Judaism was nothing but

the shadow of itself. Having received a mortal wound in 1306,

its life up to the final expulsion in 1394 was one long

death-agony.

Thus disappeared that French Judaism which contributed so large a

portion to the economic and intellectual civilization of its

fatherland during the time the sun of tolerance shone on its

horizon, but which was destined to perish the moment the greed of

princes and the fanaticism of priests, hoodwinking the masses,

united to overwhelm it. Nevertheless the three centuries of

fruitful activity were not entirely lost to the future; and the

Jews of France, who had gone in numbers to foreign lands, carried

with them their books and their ideals.

III

For a long time previous to the events just recorded, Rashi and

the Tossafists - the two words summing up the whole intellectual

movement of the Jews of France - had brought to all Judaism the

reputation of the academies of Champagne and of Ile-de-France.

"He brew literature in France," wrote E. Carmoly, "exercised

upon the Jewish world the same influence that French literature

exercised upon European civilization in general. Everywhere the

Biblical and Talmudic works of Troyes, Rameru, Dampierre, and

Paris became the common guides of the synagogues." Rashi's

commentaries, in especial, spread rapidly and were widely copied,

sometimes enlarged by additions, sometimes mutilated and

truncated. It is for this reason that certain commentaries of

his no longer exist, or exist in incomplete form.

In view of the fact that at the beginning of the thirteenth

century relations between remote countries and Christendom were

rare, and that the Christian and the Mohammedan worlds had

scarcely begun to open up to each other and come into contact, it

is readily understood why Rashi was not known in Arabic countries

in his life-time, or even immediately after his death, and why he

exercised no influence upon Maimonides, who died exactly a

hundred years after him. In the Orient there are no signs of his

influence until the end of the twelfth century. In 1192, barely

eighty years after Rashi's death, an exilarch had one of his

commentaries copied; and at the beginning of the thirteenth

century we find the commentator Samuel ben Nissim, of Aleppo,

making a citation from Rashi.

But it is naturally in the regions nearest to France that Rashi's

influence made itself most felt. The profound Talmudist, Zerahiah

ha-Levi, who lived at Lunel (1125-1186), rather frequently cites

"R. Solomon the Frenchman," and contents himself with merely

referring to Rashi's commentary without quoting in full, a fact

which shows that the work was widely spread in the Provence. A

number of years later, about 1245, Meir, son of Simon of

Narbonne, wrote in his apologetic work, "The Holy War": "The

commentaries are understood by all readers, for the least as well

as the most important things are perfectly explained in them.

Since their appearance, there is not a rabbi who has studied

without using them." I have already referred to the testimony of

Menahem ben Zerah;[144] to his may be added that of another

Provencal, Estori Parhi, who left France in 1306 to visit Spain,

and wrote an interesting book of Halakah and of recollections of

his travels. About 1320, David d'Estella, philosopher and poet,

wrote: "It is from France that God has sent us a bright light for

all Israel in the person of R. Solomon ben Isaac." Rashi was

also cited in terms of praise by the brilliant commentator and

philosopher Menahem ben Solomon Meiri, of Perpignan (1249-1306),

and by the casuist and theologian Jacob de Bagnols (about 1357-

1361), grandson of David d'Estella.

From the Provence, Rashi's renown spread on the one side to

Italy, and on the other to Spain. His Biblical commentary was

used by Benjamin ben Abraham Anaw (about 1240), of Rome, whose

brother Zedekiah was the author of the Halakic and ritual

collection Shibbole ha-Leket (The Gleaned Sheaves), a work

written in the second half of the thirteenth century, which owes

much to Rashi and his successors. The celebrated scholar and

poet Immanuel ben Solomon Romi (about 1265-1330) seems to have

known Rashi, one of whose Biblical explanations he cites for the

purpose of refuting it. The influence of the French commentator

is more apparent in the works of the Italian philosopher and

commentator Solomon Yedidiah (about 1285-1330) and the

commentator Isaiah da Trani (end of the thirteenth century).

Rashi's influence was more fruitful of results in Spain, where

intellectual activity was by far more developed than in Italy.

His renown soon crossed the Pyrenees, and, curiously enough, the

Spanish exegetes, disciples of the Hayyoudjes and the Ibn-Djanahs

availed themselves of his Biblical commentary, despite its

inferiority from a scientific point of view. They did not fail,

it is true, occasionally to dispute it. This was the case with

Abraham Ibn Ezra, who possibly came to know Rashi's works during

his sojourn in France, and combated Rashi's grammatical

explanations without sparing him his wonted sharp-edged

witticisms. To Abraham Ibn Ezra has been attributed the following

poem in Rashi's honor, without doubt wrongfully so, although

Abraham Ibn Ezra never recoiled from contradictions.

A star hath arisen on the horizon of France and shineth afar.

Peaceful it came, with all its cortege, from Sinai and Zion.

.... The blind he enlightens, the thirsty delights with his

honey-comb,

He whom men call Parshandata, the Torah's clear interpreter.

All doubts he solves, whose books are Israel's joy,

Who pierceth stout walls, and layeth bare the law's mysterious

sense.

For him the crown is destined, to him belongeth royal homage.

When one sees with what severity and injustice Abraham Ibn Ezra

treats the French commentator, one may well doubt whether this

enthusiastic eulogy sprang from his pen, capricious though we

know him to have been. "The Talmud," he said, "has declared that

the Peshat must never lose its rights. But following generations

gave the first place to Derash, as Rashi did, who pursued this

method in commenting upon the entire Bible, though he believed he

was using Peshat. In his works there is not one rational

explanation out of a thousand." As I have said, Rashi and Ibn

Ezra were not fashioned to understand each other.[145] The

commentaries of David Kimhi[146] contain no such sharp

criticisms. By birth Kimhi was a Provencal, by literary

tradition a Spaniard. He often turned Rashi's Biblical

commentaries to good account for himself. Sometimes he did not

mention Rashi by name, sometimes he referred to him openly.

A pompous eulogy of Rashi was written by Moses ben Nahman, or

Nahmanides,[147] in the introduction to his commentary on the

Pentateuch; and the body of the work shows that he constantly

drew his inspiration from Rashi and ever had Rashi before his

eyes. At the same time he also opposes Rashi, either because the

free ways of the French rabbi shocked him, or because the

Frenchman's naive rationalism gave offense to his mysticism. In

fact, it is known that Nahmanides is one of the first

representatives of Kabbalistic exegesis, and his example

contributed not a little toward bringing it into credit. Even

the author of the Zohar - that Bible of the Kabbalah, which under

cover of false authority exercised so lasting an influence upon

Judaism - whether or not he was Moses of Leon (about 1250-1305)

used for his exegesis the commentary of Rashi, without, of

course, mentioning it by name, and sometimes he even reproduced

it word for word. The Kabbalist exegete Bahya or Behaia ben

Asher, of Saragossa, in his commentary on the Pentateuch (1291)

cites Rashi as one of the principal representatives of Peshat -

behold how far we have gotten from Ibn Ezra, and how Rashi is

cleared of unjust contempt.

Although Nahmanides was wrongly held to have been the disciple of

Judab Sir Leon, it was he who introduced into Spain the works and

the method of French Talmudists, whom he possibly came to know

through his masters. Thus the Spanish Talmudists, though they

boasted such great leaders as Alfasi and Maimonides, nevertheless

accepted also the heritage of the French academies. Rashi's

influence is perceptible and acknowledged in the numerous

Talmudic writings of Solomon ben Adret,[148] and it is clearly

manifest in the commentary on Alfasi by Nissim Gerundi (about

1350), who copies Rashi literally, at the same time developing

his thought, not infrequently over-elaborating it. He also

refutes Rashi at times, but his refutation is often wrong. The

man, however, who best represents the fusion of Spanish and

French Talmudism was assuredly Asher hen Jehiel,[149] who, a

native of the banks of the Rhine, implanted in Spain the spirit

of French Judaism, and in his abridgment of the Talmud united

Spanish tradition, whose principal representative was Alfasi,

with Franco-German tradition, whose uncontested leader was Rashi.

Since that time Talmudic activity, the creative force of which

seems to have been exhausted, has been undergoing a change of

character. Asher ben Jehiel, or, as he has been called, Rosh,

terminated an important period of rabbinical literature, the

period of the Rishonim. We have seen how during this

period Rashi's reputation, at first confined within the limits of

his native province, extended little by little, until it spread

over the surrounding countries, like the tree of which Daniel

speaks, "whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight

thereof to all the earth; whose leaves were fair, and the fruit

thereof much" (Dan. iv. 20-21).

CHAPTER XII

FROM THE EXPULSION OF THE JEWS FROM

FRANCE TO THE PRESENT TIME

It might be supposed that the Jews of France, chased from their

fatherland, and so deprived of their schools, would have

disappeared entirely from the scene of literary history, and that

the intellectual works brought into being by their activity in

the domains of Biblical exegesis and Talmudic jurisprudence would

have been lost forever. Such was by no means the case. It has

been made clear that the French school exerted influence outside

of France from the twelfth to the fourteenth century, and we

shall now see how the Jews of France, saving their literary

treasures in the midst of the disturbances, carried their

literature to foreign countries, to Piedmont and to Germany.

When the Jews of Germany were expelled in turn, Poland became the

centre [center sic] of Judaism, and the literary tradition was

thus maintained without interruption up to the present time. It

is an unique example of continuity. The vitality of Judaism

gained strength in the misfortunes that successively assailed it,

Per damna, per caedes, ab Ipso

Ducit opes auimumque ferro.

A large number of Jews exiled from France established themselves

in the north of Italy, where they formed distinct communities

faithful to the ancient traditions. Thus they propagated the

works of the French rabbis. Rashi's commentaries and the ritual

collections following his teachings were widely copied there, and

of course, truncated and mutilated. They served both as the

text-books of students and as the breviaries, so to speak, of

scholars.

They also imposed themselves, as we have seen, upon the Spanish

rabbis, who freely recognized the superiority of the Jews of

France and Germany in regard to Talmudic schools. Isaac ben

Sheshet[150] said, "From France goes forth the Law, and the word

of God from Germany." Rashi's influence is apparent in the

Talmudic writings of this rabbi, as well as in the works, both

Talmudic and exegetic in character, of his successor Simon ben

Zemah Duran,[151] and in the purely exegetic works of the

celebrated Isaac Abrabanel (1437-1509), who salutes in Rashi "a

father in the province of the Talmud." It was in the fifteenth

century that some of the supercommentaries were made to Rashi's

commentary on the Pentateuch. The most celebrated-and justly

celebrated-is that of Elijah ben Abraham Mizrahi, a Hebrew

scholar, mathematician, and philosopher, who lived in Turkey.

His commentary, says Wogue, "is a master-piece of logic, keen-

wittedness, and Talmudic learning."

However, as if the creative force of the Jews had been exhausted

by a prolific period lasting several centuries, Rashi's

commentaries were not productive of original works in a similar

style. Accepted everywhere, they became the law everywhere, but

they did not stimulate to fresh effort. Scholars followed him,

as the poet said, in adoring his footsteps from afar.

For if his works had spent their impulse, his personality, on the

other hand, became more and more popular. Legends sprang up

ascribing to him the attributes of a saint and universal scholar,

almost a magician.[152] He was venerated as the father of

rabbinical literature. In certain German communities, he,

together with a few other rabbis, is mentioned in the prayer

recited in commemoration of the dead, and his name is followed by

the formula, "who enlightened the eyes of the Captivity by his

commentaries." Rashi's commentaries not only exercised profound

influence upon the literary movement of the Jews, but also wove a

strain into the destinies of the Jews of France and Germany.

During this entire period of terror, the true middle ages of the

Jews, for whom the horrors of the First Crusade, like a

"disastrous twilight," did not draw to an end until the bright

dawn of the French Revolution, the thing that sustained and

animated them, that enabled them to bear pillage and

exploitation, martyrdom and exile, was their unremitting study of

the Bible and the Talmud. And how could they have become so

passionately devoted to the reading of the two books, if Rashi

had not given them the key, if he had not thus converted the

books into a safeguard for the Jews, a lamp in the midst of

darkness, a bright hope against alien persecutions?

Rashi's prestige then became so great that the principal Jewish

communities claimed him as their own,[153] and high-standing

families alleged that they were connected with him. It is known

that the celebrated mystic Eleazar of Worms (1160-1230) is a

descendant of his. A certain Solomon Simhah, of Troyes, in 1297

wrote a casuistic, ethical work in which he claims to belong to

the fourth generation descended from Rashi beginning with Rashi's

sons-in-law. The family of the French rabbi may be traced down

to the thirteenth century. At that time mention is made of a

Samuel ben Jacob, of Troyes, who lived in the south of France.

And it is also from Rashi that the family Luria, or Loria,

pretends to be descended, although the titles for its claim are

not incontestably authentic. The name of Loria comes, not, as

has been said, from the river Loire, but from a little city of

Italy, and the family itself may have originated in Alsace. Its

head, Solomon, son of Samuel Spira (about 1375), traced his

connection with Rashi through his mother, a daughter of

Mattathias Treves, one of the last French rabbis. The daughter

of Solomon, Miriam (this name seems to have been frequent in

Rashi's family), was, it appears, a scholar. It is certain that

the family has produced illustrious offspring, among them

Yosselmann of Rosheim (about 1554), the famous rabbi and defender

of the Jews of the Empire; Elijah Loanz (about 1564-1616),

wandering rabbi, Kabbalist, and commentator; Solomon Luria[154]

(died in 1573 at Lublin), likewise a Kabbalist and Talmudist, but

of the highest rank, on account of his bold thinking and sense of

logic, who renewed the study of the Tossafists; and Jehiel

Heilprin (about 1725), descended from Luria through his mother,

author of a valuable and learned Jewish chronicle followed by an

index of rabbis. He declared he had seen a genealogical table on

which Rashi's name appeared establishing his descent from so

remote an ancestor as Johanan ha-Sandlar and including Rashi in

the steps.[155] This family, which was divided into two

branches, the Heilprins and the Lurias, still counts among its

members renowned scholars and estimable merchants.

As if the numberless copies of his commentaries had not sufficed

to spread Rashi's popularity, the discovery of printing lent its

aid in giving it the widest possible vogue. The commentary on

the Pentateuch is the first Hebrew work of which the date of

printing is known. The edition was published at Reggio at the

beginning of 1475 by the printer Abraham ben Garton. Zunz

reckoned that up to 1818 there were seventeen editions in which

the commentary appeared alone, and one hundred and sixty in which

it accompanied the text. Some modifications were introduced

into the commentary either because of the severity of the censors

or because of the prudence of the editors. Among the books that

the Inquisition confiscated in 1753 in a small city of Italy,

there were twenty-one Pentateuchs with Rashi's commentary.

All the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud are accompanied

by Rashi's commentaries in the inner column and by the Tossafot

in the outer column.

Rashi's authority gained in weight more and more, and he became

representative in ordinary, as it were, of Talmudic exegesis.

This fact is made evident by a merely superficial survey of the

work Bet Yosef (House of Joseph), which is, one may say,

an index to rabbinical literature. Rashi is mentioned here on

every page. He is the official commentator of the Talmudic text.

The author of the Bet Yosef, the learned Talmudist and

Kabbalist Joseph ben Ephraim Karo (born 1448, died at Safed,

Palestine, at 87 years of age), places Rashi's Biblical

commentary on the same plane as the Aramaic translation of the

Bible. He recommends that it be read on the Sabbath, at the same

time as the Pentateuch and the Targum. Luria goes even further.

According to him, when the Targum and Rashi cannot be read at the

same time, preference should be given to Rashi, since he is more

easily understood, and renders the text more intelligible.

Rashi's commentary, therefore, entered into the religious life of

the Jews. It is chiefly the commentaries on the Five Books of

Moses and the Five Megillot, the Scriptural books forming part of

the synagogue liturgy, that were widely circulated in print and

were made the basis of super-commentaries. The best of these are

the super-commentary of Simon Ashkenazi, a writer of the

seventeenth century, born in Frankfort and died at Jerusalem, and

the clear, ingenious super-commentary of Sabbatai ben Joseph

Bass, printer and bibliographer, born in 1641, died at Krotoszyn

in 1718.

The other representatives of the French school of exegetes have

fallen into oblivion. Rashi alone survived, and what saved him,

I greatly fear, were the Halakic and Haggadic elements pervading

his commentary. An editor who ventured to undertake the

publication (in 1705) of the commentary on the Pentateuch by

Samuel ben Meir,[156] complains in the preface that his

contemporaries found in it nothing worth occupying their time.

Rashi's commentary was better adapted to the average intellects

and to the Talmudic culture of its readers.

Rashi's Talmudic commentary, also, was more generally studied

than other commentaries, and gave a more stimulating impulse to

rabbinical literature. Teachers and masters racked their brains

to discover in it unexpected difficulties, for the sake of

solving them in the most ingenious fashion. This produced the

kind of literature known as Hiddushim, Novellae, and

Dikdukim, subtleties. A rabbi, for example, would set

himself the task of counting the exact number of times the

expression "that is to say" occurs in the commentary on the first

three Talmudic treatises. Jacob ben Joshua Falk (died 1648), who

believed Rashi had appeared to him in a dream, attempted in his

"Defense of Solomon" to clear the master of all attacks made upon

him. Solomon Luria and Samuel Edels (about 1555-1631), or, as is

said in the schools, the Maharshal and the Maharsha, explain the

difficult passages of Rashi's Talmudic commentary, sometimes by

dint of subtlety, sometimes by happy corrections. Still more

meritorious are the efforts of Joel Sirkes (died in 1640 at

Cracow), who often skilfully altered Rashi's text for the better.

By a curious turn in affairs it was the Christians who in the

province of exegesis took up the legacy bequeathed by Rashi.

While grammar and exegesis by reason of neglect remained

stafionary among the Jews, the humanists cultivated them eagerly.

Taste for the classical languages had aroused a lively interest

in Hebrew and a desire to know the Scriptures in the original.

The Reformation completed what the Renaissauce had begun, and the

Protestants placed the Hebrew Bible above the Vulgate. Rashi, it

is true, did not gain immediately from this renewal of Biblical

studies; greater inspiration was derived from the more methodical

and more scientific Spaniards. But his eclipse was only

momentary. Richard Simon, who gave so vigorous an impulse to

Biblical studies in France, and who, if Bossuet had not

forestalled him, would possibly have originated a scientific

method of exegesis, profited by the commentaries of the man he

called major et praestantior theologus. All the

Christians with pretensions to Hebrew scholarship, who endeavored

to understand the Bible in the original, studied Rashi, not only

because he helped them to grasp the meaning of the text, but also

because in their eyes he was the official rabbinical authority.

He was quoted, abridged, and plagiarized - a clear sign of

popularity. Soon the need arose to render him accessible to all

theologians, and he was translated into the academic language,

that is, into Latin. Partial translations appeared in great

number between 1556 and 1710. Finally, J. F. Breithaupt made a

complete translation, for which he had recourse to various

manuscripts. His work is marked by clear intelligence and great

industry. This translation as well as the commentary of Nicholas

de Lyra might still be consulted with profit by an editor of

Rashi.

Since the Christians did not devote themselves to the Talmud as

much as to the Bible, they made but little use of the Talmudic

commentaries of the French rabbi. Nevertheless John Buxtorf the

Elder, who calls Rashi consummatissimus ille theologiae

judaicae doctor, frequently appeals to his authority in the

"Hebrew and Chaldaic Lexicon." Other names might be mentioned

besides Buxtorf's.

Nor did Rashi fail to receive the supreme honor of being censored

by the Church. Under St. Louis autos-da-fe were made of

his works, and later the Inquisition pursued them with its

rigorous measures. They were prohibited in Spain and burnt in

Italy. The ecclesiastical censors eliminated or corrected

whatever seemed to them an attempt upon the dignity of religion.

At the present time many French ecclesiastics know Rashi only for

his alleged blasphemies against Christianity.

While the Catholics and Protestants who possessed Hebrew learning

applied themselves to the study of Rashi, among the Jews

"he was always revered, always admired, even as an exegete,

but he was admired to so high a degree that no one thought of

continuing his work and of deepening the furrow he had so

vigorously opened. It seemed as though his commentary had

raised the Pillars of Hercules of Biblical knowledge and as

though with him exegesis had said its last word. During this

period the grammatical and rational study of the word of God

fell Into more and more neglect, and its real meaning became

Increasingly obscured. The place of a serious and sincere

exegesis was taken by frivolous combinations, subtle

comparisons, and mystical interpretations carried out

according to preconceived notions and based on the slightest

accident of form in the text. Rashi had many admirers, but

few successors."[157]

Isaiah Horwitz (1570-1630), whose ritual and ethical collection

is still very popular in Eastern Europe, compares Rashi's

commentaries to the revelation on Sinai. "In every one of his

phrases," he says, "marvellous [marvelous sic] things are

concealed, for he wrote under Divine inspiration." His son

Sabbatai Sheftel is even more striking in his expressions; he

says, "I know by tradition that whoever finds a defect in Rashi,

has a defect in his own brain." It was related that when Rashi

was worried by some difficult question, he shut himself up in a

room, where God appeared to throw light upon his doubts. The

apparition came to him when he was plunged in profound sleep, and

he did not return to his waking senses until some one brought him

an article from the wall of his room. Thus a superstitious,

sterile respect replaced the intelligent and productive

admiration of the earlier centuries.

To revive the scientific spirit and the rational study of the

Scriptures, a Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) was needed. With the

year 1780, when his translation of the Pentateuch and his

commentary upon it appeared, the renaissance of Jewish learning

commenced; even the study of the Talmud, regenerated by the

critical spirit of the time, was resumed. Mendelssohn himself

drew largely upon Rashi's commentary, correcting the text when it

seemed corrupt, trying to decipher the French laazim, and

paying attention to the essential meaning of Rashi's

explanations, either for the sake of completing or defending

them, or for the sake of refuting them in the name of taste and

good sense. His collaborators and disciples, the Biurists,-as

they are called, after Biur, the general title of their works-

desirous of reconciling the natural meaning of the text with the

traditional interpretations, often turned to good account the

views of the French commentator. These writings, which renewed

the rational study of Hebrew and the taste for a sound exegesis,

worthily crown the work begun by the rabbi of the eleventh

century. At this day the Perush of Rashi and the Biur of

Mendelssohn are the favorite commentaries of orthodox Jews.

Since Mendelssohn the glorious tradition of learning has not been

interrupted again, and Rashi's work continues to be bound up with

the destinies of Jewish literature. The nineteenth century will

make a place for itself in the annals of this literature; for the

love of Jewish learning has inspired numerous scholars, and the

renown of most of them is connected with Rashi. Zunz (1794-

1886) became known in 1823 through his essay on Rashi, a model of

critical skill and learning, despite inevitable mistakes and

omissions. Geiger 158 won a name for himself by his studies on

the French exegetic school. Heidenheim[159] wrote a work

distinguished for subtlety, to defend the explanations of Rashi

from the grammatical point of view. Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-

1865), with his usual brilliancy, made a warm defense of Rashi;

and, finally, I. H. Weiss[160] dedicated to him a study dealing

with certain definite points in Rashi's life and work. When

Luzzatto took up the defense of Rashi with ardor, it was to place

him over against Abraham Ibn Ezra, who, in Luzzatto's opinion,

was too highly exalted. The considerable progress made by

exegesis and philology rendered many scholars aware of the

defectiveness of Rashi's Biblical commentaries; while Ibn Ezra

was more pleasing to them on account of his scientific intellect

and his daring. But the French commentator lost nothing of his

authority in the eyes of the conservative students of Hebrew, who

continued to see in him an indispensable help. This influence

of Rashi's contains mixed elements of good and evil. In some

measure he created the fortune of Midrashic exegesis, and he is

in a slight degree responsible for the relative stagnation of

Biblical as compared with Talmudic studies in Eastern Europe.

In Talmudic literature, on the contrary, Rashi's authority is

uncontested, in fact, cannot be contested. Its stimulating

impulse is not yet exhausted. While the Talmudists of the old

school saw in him the official, consecrated guide, the

Rapoports,[161] the Weisses, the Frankels,[162] all who

cultivated the scientific and historic study of the Talmud, lay

stress upon the excellence of his method and the sureness of his

information. About twelve years ago, an editor wanted to publish

the entire Talmud in one volume. He obtained the authorization

of the rabbis only upon condition that he printed Rashi's

commentary along with the text.

Thus Rashi's reputation has not diminished in the course of eight

centuries. On the first of August, 1905, it was exactly eight

hundred years that the eminent scholar died at Troyes. As is

proper, the event was marked by a commemoration of a literary and

scientific character. Articles on Rashi appeared in the Jewish

journals and reviews. Such authorities as Dr. Berliner, Mr. W.

Bacher, and others, sketched his portrait and published

appreciations of his works. Dr. Berliner, moreover, issued a new

edition of Rashi's Pentateuch Commentary in honor of the

anniversary, and, as was mentioned above, Mr. S. Buber celebrated

the occasion by inaugurating the publication of the hitherto

unedited works of Rashi, beginning with the Sefer ha-Orah.

CONCLUSION

The beautiful unity of his life and the noble simplicity of his

nature make Rashi's personality one of the most sympathetic in

Jewish history. The writings he left are of various kinds and

possess various interests for us. His Decisions and Responsa

acquaint us with his personal traits, and with the character of

his contemporaries; his religious poems betray the profound faith

of his soul, and his sensitiveness to the woes of his brethren.

But above all Rashi was a commentator. He carved himself a niche

from which he has not been removed, and though his work as a

commentator has been copied, it will doubtless remain impossible

of absolute imitation. Rashi, then, is a commentator, though as

such he cannot aspire to the glory of masters like Maimonides and

Jehudah ha-Levi. But the task he set himself was to comment upon

the Bible and the Talmud, the two living sources that feed the

great stream of Judaism, and he fulfilled the task in a masterly

fashion and conclusively. Moreover he touched upon nearly all

branches of Jewish literature, grammar, exegesis, history, and

archaeology. In short his commentaries became inseparable from

the texts they explain. For, if in some respects his work

despite all this may seem of secondary importance and inferior in

creative force to the writings of a Saadia or a Maimonides, it

gains enormously in value by the discussion and comment it evoked

and the influence it exercised.

Rashi, one may say, is one of the fathers of rabbinical

literature, which he stamped with the impress of his clear,

orderly intellect. Of him it could be written: "With him began a

new era for Judaism, the era of science united to profound

piety."

His influence was not limited to scholarly circles. He is one of

the rare writers who have had the privilege of becoming truly

popular, and his renown was not tarnished, as that of Maimonides

came near being on account of bitter controversies and violent

contests. He was not the awe-inspiring master who is followed

from afar; he was the master to whom one always listens, whose

words are always read; and the writers who imitate his work -

with more or less felicity - believe themselves inspired by him.

The middle ages knew no Jewish names more famous than those of

Jehudah ha-Levi and Maimonides; but how many nowadays read their

writings and understand them wholly? The "Diwan" as well as the

"Guide of the Perplexed" are products of Jewish culture grafted

upon Arabic culture. They do not unqualifiedly correspond to

present ideas and tastes. Rashi's' work, on the contrary, is

essentially and intimately Jewish. Judaism could renounce the

study of the Bible and of that other Bible, the Talmud, only

under penalty of intellectual suicide. And since, added to

respect for these two monuments, is the difficulty of

understanding them, the commentaries holding the key to them are

assured of an existence as along [long sic] as theirs.

Rashi's writings, therefore, extend beyond the range of merely

occasional works, and his influence will not soon die out. His

influence, indeed, is highly productive of results, since his

commentaries do not arrest the march of science, as witness his

disciples who enlarged and enriched the ground he had ploughed so

vigorously, and whose fame only adds to the lustre [luster sic]

of Rashi's name. The field he commanded was the entire Jewish

culture of France - of France, which for a time he turned into

the classic land of Biblical and Talmudic studies. "In him,"

says M. Israel Levi, "is personified the Judaism of Northern

France, with its scrupulous attachment to tradition, its naive,

untroubled faith, and its ardent piety, free from all mysticism."

Nor was Rashi confined to France; his great personality dominated

the whole of Judaism. Dr. M. Berliner writes: "Even nowadays,

after eight hundred years have rolled by, it is from him we draw

our inspiration,- we who cultivate the sacred literature,- it is

his school to which we resort, it is his commentaries we study.

These commentaries are and will remain our light in the principal

department of our intellectual patrimony."

Doubtless Rashi is but a commentator, yet a commentator without

peer by reason of his value and influence. And, possibly, this

commentator represents most exactly, most powerfully, certain

general propensities of the Jewish people and certain main

tendencies of Jewish culture. Rashi, then, has a claim,

universally recognized, upon a high place of honor in our history

and in our literature.

NOTE (ESW): This graphic has been reformatted to fit within 66

columns.

APPENDIX I

THE FAMILY OF RASHI

____________________|_____________

/ \

Simon the Elder Daughter=Isaac

Samuel Samuel Solomon (Rashi) Nathan

| | 1040-1105 |

| | ___________|____________ |

| | / \ |

Simhah Meir=Jochebed Rachel Miriam=Judah (Ribam)

of Vitry about| (or Bellassez) | Azriel

| 1065- | divorced by Eliezer |

| 1135 | (or Jocelyn) |

| | __|_______

| _____|___________________________ / \ (?)

| / \ Yomtob Miriam

Samuel=Miram Samuel Jacob Isaac Solomon | |

| (Rashbam) about (Ribam) | |

| about 1100-1171 Left 7 Judah |

| 1085-1158 children | |

| / |

Isaac (Ri the Elder) / Dolce=Eleazar

About 1120-1195 Isaac of Worms

| | d.1195 d.1220

| |

Elhanan |

d. 1184 |

| Judah Sir Leon of Paris

| 1166-1224

Samuel

APPENDIX II

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. THE WORKS OF RASHI

A critical revision of Rashi's works remains to be made. They

were used to such an extent, and, up to the time when printing

gave definiteness to existing diversities, so many copies were

made, that some of the works were preserved in bad shape, others

were lost, and others again received successive additions.

1. BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES. - They cover nearly all the twenty -

four books of the Bible.

Job. - "On Job the manuscripts are divided into series,

according to whether or not they break off at xl. 28 of the

text. The one Series gives Rashi's commentary to the end; the

other, on the ground that Rashi's death prevented him from

finishing his work, completes the commentary with that of

another rabbi, R. Jacob Nazir" (Arsene Darmesteter). Geiger

attributes this Supplementary commentary, which exists in

several versions, to Samuel ben Meir; others attribute it to

Joseph Kara. Some regard it as a compilation; others, again,

assert that the entire commentary was not written by Rashi.

Ezra and Nehemiah.- Some authors deny that Rashi

composed commentaries on Ezra and Nehemiah.

Chronicles. - It is certain that the commentary on

Chronicles, which does not occur in the good

manuscripts, and which was published for the first time at

Naples in 1487, is not to be ascribed to Rashi. This was

observed by so early a writer as Azulal, and it has been

clearly demonstrated by Weiss (Kerem Hemed, v., 232

et seq.). It seems that Rashi did not comment upon

Chronicles at all (In spite of Zunz and Weiss).

Concerning the author of the printed commentary there is

doubt. According to Zunz (Zur Geschichte und

Literatur, p.73), it must have been composed at Narbonne

about 1130-1140 by the disciples of Saadla (?).

2. TALMUDIC COMMENTARIES. - Rashi did not comment on the

treatises lacking a Gemara, namely, Eduyot, Middot (the

commentary upon which was written by Shemaiah), and

Tamid (in the commentary on which Rashi is cited). It

is calculated that, in all, Rashi commented on thirty

treatises (compare Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, s. v.,

Weiss, and below, section B, 2).

Pesahim. - The commentary on Pesahim from 99b on is the

work of Rashbam.

Taanit. - So early a writer as Emden denied to Rashi the

authorship of the commentary on Taanit; and his

conclusions are borne out by the style. There was a commentary

on Taanit cited by the Tossafot, which forms the basis

of the present commentary; and this may have belonged to the

school of Rashi.

Moed Katan. - The commentary on Moed Katan is

attributed by Reifmann to Gershom (Monatsschrift, III).

According to B. Zomber (Rashi's Commentary on Nedarim

and Moed Katan, Berlin, 1867), who shows that Gershom's

commentary is different, the extant commentary is a first

trial of Rashi's and was later recast by him. This would

explain the differences between the commentary under

consideration and the one joined to the En Jacob and to

Rif, which is more complete and might be the true commentary

by Rashi. These conclusions have been attacked by Rabbinowicz

(Dikduke Soferim, II), who accepts Reifmann's thesis.

Zomber replied in the Moreh Derek, Lyck, 1870; and

Rabbinowicz in turn replied in the Moreh ha-Moreh,

Munich, 1871. To sum up, both sides agree in saying that the

basis of the present commentary was modified by Rashi or by

some one else. According to I. H. Weiss various versions of

Rashi's Commentary were current. The most incomplete is the

present one. That accompanying Rif is more complete, though

also not without faults.

Nedarim. - The commentary on Nedarim, from 22b to

25b, may contain a fragment by R. Gershom. Nor, to judge from

the style, does the remainder seem to belong to Rashi. Good

writers do not cite it. Reifmann attributes it to Isaiah da

Trani, Zomber to the disciples of Rashi.

Nazir. - Several critics deny to Rashi the authorship

of the commentary on Nazir. Although there are no

strong reasons for so doing, the doubt exists; for differences

are pointed out between this and the other commentaries. P.

Chajes holds that Rashi's disciples are responsible for the

commentaries on Nedarim and Taanit.

Zebahim. - The commentary on Zebahim is corrupt

and has undergone interpolations; but there are no strong

reasons why it should not be ascribed to Rashi.

Baba Batra. - Rashbam completed his grandfather's

commentary on Baba Batra from 29a on, or, rather, later

writers supplemented Rashi's commentary with that of his

grandson. This supplement is to be found at the Bodlelan in a

more abridged and, without doubt, in a more authentic form.

Makkot. - The commentary on Makkot, from 19b on,

was composed by Judah ben Nathan (see note in the editions).

It seems that a commentary on the whole by Rashi was known to

Yomtob ben Abraham.

Horaiot. - The commentary on Horaiot was not

written by Rashi (Reifmann, Ha-Maggid xxi. 47-49).

Meilah. - It is more certain that the commentary on

Meilah was not written by Rashi. Numerous errors and

additions have been pointed out. According to a manuscript of

Halberstamm it would belong to Judah ben Nathan.

Keritot and Bekorot. - The commentary on

Keritot is not Rashi's, and that on Bekorot,

after 57b, according to Bezalel Ashkenazi, is also not

Rashi's.

3. PIRKE ABOT. - The commentary on the Pirke Abot, printed

for the first time at Mentone In 1560, was cited by Simon ben

Zemah Duran (d. 1444) as being by Rashi. But Jacob Emden (d.

1776) denies Rashi's authorship, and justly so. One

manuscript attributes the commentary to Isaiah da Trani,

another to Kimhi. Though the numerous copies present

differences, it is not impossible that they are derived from a

common source, which might be Rashi's commentary; for despite

some diffuseness in certain passages, the present commentary

is in his style. The Italian laazim may have been made

by Italian copyists.

4. BERESHIT RABRAH. - The commentary on Bereshit Rabbah.

According to A. Epstein (Magazin of Berliner, xiv.

Ha-Hoker I), this commentary, incorrectly printed (the

first time at Venice, 1568), is composed of two different

commentaries. The basis of the first is the commentary of

Kalonymos ben Sabbatai, of Rome; the second is anonymous and

of later date. A third commentary exists in manuscript, and

is possibly of the school of Rashi.

Mention should be made of a commentary on the Thirtytwo Rules

by R. Jose ha-Gelili, attributed to Rashi and published in the

Yeshurun of Kobak.

5. RESPONSA. - The Responsa of Rashi have not becn gathered

together into one collection. Some Responsa mixed with some of

his decisions occur in the compilations already cited and in

the following Halakic compilations: Eben ha-Ezer by

Eliezer ben Nathan (Prague, 1670), Or Zarua by Isaac

ben Moses of Vienna (I-II. Zhitomir, 1862; III-V, Jerusalem,

1887), Shibbole ha-Leket by Zedekiah ben Abraham Anaw

(Wilna, 1887, ed. Buber), Mordecai, by Mordecal ben

Hillel (printed together with Rif), Responsa by Meir of

Rothenberg (Cremona, 1557; Prague, 1608; Lemberg, 1860;

Berlin, 1891-92; Budapest, 1896), etc. (see below, section B,

and Buber, Introd. to Sefer ha-Orah, pp.152 et

seq.)

6. In rabbinical literature we find quotations from Responsa

collections bearing upon special points in Talmudic law, such

as ablutions, the making and the use of Tefillin, the

Zizit, the order of the Parashiot, the blessing

of the priests, the ceremony of the Passover eve, the

slaughter of animals, the case of diseased animals, impurity

in women, etc.

7. These collections have penetrated in part into the SEFER HA-

PARDES, the MAHZOR VITRY, and the other compilations mentioned

in chap. IX. Upon this point see chap. IX and articles by A.

Epstein and S. Poznanski published in the

Monatsschrift, xli.

8. THE LITURGICAL POEMS by Rashi, some of which are printed in

the collections of Selihot of the German ritual, are

enumerated by Zunz in Synagogale Poesie des

Mittelalters, Berlin, 1865, pp.252-4.

Three books have been wrongly attributed to Rashi: a medical

work, Sefer ha-Refuah; a grammatical work, Leshon

Limmudim, actually composed by Solomon ben Abba Mari of

Lunel; and an entirely fanciful production called Sefer ha-

Parnes (incorrect for Sefer ha-Pardes).

B. THE EDITIONS OF RASHI's WORKS

1. THE BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES 1. - According to A. Darmesteter

"twenty different editions have been counted of Rashi's

commentary, complete or partial, without the Hebrew text. As

for the editions containing the Bible together with Rashi's

commentary, their number amounts to seventeen complete

editions and 155 partial editions, of the latter of which 114

are for the Pentateuch alone." The list of these editions is

to be found in Furst, Bibliotheca judaica (Leipsic,

1849, 2d vol. 1851), II, pp.78 et seq.;

Steinschneider, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the

Bodleian Library (Berlin, 1852-1860), col. 2340-57; Ben

Jakob, Ozar ha-Sefarim (Wilna, 1887), pp.629 et

seq. The first two works enumerate also the super-

commentaries on Rashi.

II. Latin Translations. - Besides numerous partial

translations, also listed in the works of Furst and

Steinschneider, a complete translation exists by J. F.

Breithaupt, Gotha, 1710 (Pentateuch) and 1713-1714 (Prophets

and Hagiographa) in quarto.

III. German Translations. - L. Haymann, R. Solomon

Iarchi. Ausfuhrlicher Commentar uber den Pentateuch. 1st

vol., Genesis, Bonn, 1883, in German characters and without

the Hebrew text. Leopold Dukes, Rashi zum Pentateuch,

Prague, 1833-1838, in Hebrew characters and with the Hebrew

text opposite. J. Dessaner, a translation into Judaeo-German

with a vowelled text, Budapest, 1863. Some fragmentary

translations into Judaeo-German had appeared before, by

Broesch, in 1560, etc.

2. THE TALMUDIC COMMENTARIES. - All the editions of the Talmud

contain Rashi's commentary. Up to the present time forty-five

complete editions of the Talmud have been counted.

3. RESPONSA. - Some Responsa addressed to the rabbis of Auxerre

were published by A. Geiger, Melo Hofnaim, Berlin,

1840. Twenty-eight Responsa were edited by B. Goldberg,

Hofes Matmonim, Berlin, 1845, thirty by J. Muller,

Reponses faites par de celebres rabbins francais et

lorrains des xie et xiie siecles, Vienna, 1881. Some

isolated Responsa were published in the collection of Responsa

of Judah ben Asher (50a, 52b), Berlin, 1846, in the Ozar

Nehmad II, 174, in Bet-Talmud II, pp.296 and 341,

at the end of the study on Rashi cited below in section C,

etc.

4. THE SEFER HA-PARDES was printed at Constantinople in 1802

according to a defective copy. The editor Intercalated

fragments of the Sefer ha-Orah, which he took from an

often illegible manuscript.

THE MAHEOR VITRY, the existence of which was revealed by

Luzzatto, was published according to a defective manuscript of

the British Museum, under the auspices of the literary Society

Mekize Nirdamim, by S. Hurwitz, Berlin, 1890-1893, 8.

C. CRITICAL WORKS OF REFERENCE

Book I. Chap. 1. - On the situation of the Jews In France in

general, the following works may be read with profit: Zunz,

Zur Geschichte und Literatur, Berlin, 1845. Gudemann,

Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden in

Frankreich und Deutschland, Vienna, 1880, 8 (Hebrew

translation by Frledberg under the title Ha-Torah weha-

Hayim, ed. Achiassaf, Warsaw, 1896).

Berliner, Aus dem Leben der deutschen Juden im

Mittelalter, Berlin, 1900.

Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, Jewish

Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1896. Concerning

Gershom ben Judah, see Gross, Gallia judaica, Paris,

1897, pp.299 et seq.

Chap. II-IV.-Works in general. Besides the accounts of Rashi in

the works of the historians of the Jewish people and

literature (especially Graetz, Geschichte der Juden,

Leipsic, 1861, vol. vi; English translation published by the

Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1895,

vols. iii and iv; Hebrew translation by L. Rabbinovitch,

Warsaw, 1894, vol. iv), there are two most important studies

of Rashi:

1. Zunz, Salomon ben Isaac, genannt Rascht, in Zunz's

Zeitschrift fur die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1823,

pp.277-384. Additions by Zunz himself in the preface to

Gottesdienstliche Vortrage, and in the catalogue of the

library at Leipsic, by Berliner in the Monatsschrift xi

and xii, by Klein, ibid. xi. One appreciates the

originality of this study all the more if one reads in the

Histoire litteraire de la France, xvi., the passage in

which are collected all the legends retailed concerning Rashi

in the world of Christian scholars at the time when Zunz

wrote.

Zunz's essay was translated into Hebrew and enriched with

notes by Samson Bloch, Vita R. Salomon Isaki, Lemberg

1840, 8. Second edition by Hirschenthal, Warsaw, 1862. The

essay was abridged by Samuel Cahen in the Journal de

l'Institute historique, I, and plagiarized by the Abbe

Etienne Georges, Le rabbin Salomon Raschi (sic) in the

Annuaire administratif ... du departement de

l'Aube, 1868. Compare Clement-Mullet, Documents

pour servir a l'histoire du rabbin Salomon fils de Isaac

in the Memoires de la Societe d'Agriculture ... de

l'Aube, xix.

2. I. H. Weiss, R. Salomon bar Isaac (in Hebrew), in the

Bet Talmud II, 1881-82, Nos. 2-10 (cf. iii. 81). Off-

print under the title Biographien judischer Gelehrten,

2nd leaflet, Vienna, 1882.

Other works on Rashi are: M. H. Friedlaender, Raschi, in

Judisches Litteraturblatt, xvii. M. Grunwald, Raschi's

Leben und Wirken, ibid. x.

Concerning the date of Rashi's death, see Luzzatto, in the

Orient, vii. 418.

Book II. Chap. V. - Concerning the laazim see A.

Darmesteter in the Romania I.(1882), and various other

essays reprinted in the Reliques scientifiques, Paris,

1890, vol. i. The deciphering of the laazim by

Berliner in his edition of the commentary on the Pentateuch is

defective, and that of Landau in his edition of the Talmud

(Prague, 1829; 2d ed., 1839) is still more inadequate. A.

Darmesteter's essay on the laazim of all the Biblical

commentaries will soon appear.

Chap. VI. - On Moses ha-Darshan there is a monograph by A.

Epstein, Vienna 1891; and on Menahem ben Helbo one by S.

Poznanski, Warsaw, 1904.

Concerning the Biblical commentaries see:

A. Geiger, Nite Naamanim, oder Sammlung aus alten

schatzbaren Manuscripten, Berlin, 1847.

Parshandata, die Nordfranzosische Ezegetenschule,

Leipsic, 1855.

Antoine Levy, Die Exegese bei den franzosischen Juden vom

10 bis 14 Jahrhundert (translated from the French),

Leipsic, 1873.

Nehemiah Kronberg, Raschi als Exeget ... , Halle

[1882]. In Winter und Wunsehe, Die judische Litteratur,

ii, Berlin, 1897, Die Bibelexegese, by W. Bacher.

Chap. VII. - See especially the above mentioned essay of Weiss,

and by the same author, Dor Dor we-Dorschaw, Zur Geschichte

der judischen Tradition, Vienna, iv, 1887.

In Winter und Wunsche ibid. ii, Die Halacha in

Italien, Frankreich und Deutschland, by A. Kaminka.

Chap. VIII. - A. Berliner, Zur Charakteristik Raschi's in

Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an D. Kaufmann (published

also separately), Breslau, 1900.

Chap. IX.-Weiss, ibid.; Epstein in the

Monatsschrift, xli.

Chap. X. - Zunz, Die Synagogale Poesie, Berlin, 1855.

Clement-Mullet, Poesies ou Selichot attribuees a

Raschi, in the Memoires de la Societe academique de

l'Aube, xx; published by itself, Troyes, 1856.

Book III. Chaps. XI-XII. - The history of Rashi's influence forms

part of the general history of later rabbinical literature.

Mention, therefore, may be made of the following works,

besides the history of Graetz, the works of Geiger and of A.

Levy, and the references in Winter und Wunsche, II:

Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur.

Renan [and Neubauer], Les rabbins francais (Histoire

litteraire de la France), Paris, 1877.

L. Wogue, Histoire de la Bible et de l'exegese biblique,

Paris, 1881.

I.H. Weiss, Dor Dor we-Dorshaw, iv and V.

Gross, Gallia judaica, Paris, 1897, passim.

Berliner, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Raschi-Commentare,

Berlin, 1903.

It is impossible to enumerate all the monographs and all the

magazine articles. Concerning Samuel b. Meir, see Rosin, R.

Samuel ben Meir als Schrifterklarer, Breslau, 1880;

concerning Jacob Tam, see Weiss, Rabbenu Tam, in the

Bet Talmud, iii; concerning Jacob b. Simson, see Epstein

in the Revue des etudes juives, xxxv, pp.240 et

seq.; concerning Shemaiah, see A. Epstein in the

Monatsschrift, xli, pp.257, 296, 564; concerning Simson b.

Abraham, see H. Gross in the Revue des etudes juives, vii

and viii; concerning Judah Sir Leon, see Gross in Berliner's

Magazin, iv and V.

The influence of Rashi upon Nicholas de Lyra and Luthcr is the

subject of an essay by Siegfried in Archiv fur

wissenschaftliche Erforsehung des Alten Testaments, i and ii.

For Nicholas de Lyra alone, see Neumann in the Revue des

etudes juives, xxvi and xxvii.

Concerning Rashi's descendants, see Epstein, Mishpahat

Luria et Kohen-Zedek in Ha-Goren, i, Appendix.

NOTES

1 See W. Bacher, Raschi una Maimuni, Monatsschrift,

XLIX, pp.1 et seq. Also D. Yellin and I. Abrahams,

Maimonides. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication

Society of America, 1903.

2 A legend has it that Vespasian made some Jews embark on three

vessels, which were then abandoned on the open sea. One of

the ships reached Aries, another Lyons, and the third

Bordeaux. See Gross, Gallia judaica, p.74.

3 See, for example, p.164.

4 See Note 10.

5 Israel Levi.

6 Theodor Reinach, La Grande Encyclopedie, s. v. Juifs.

7 However, there had been Talmudists in France before this

period.

6 In the first quarter of the eleventh century Burchard, bishop

of Worms, wrote the famous compilation which became one of

the sources of canonical law. Concerning Lorraine, its Jews

and Talmudical schools, see chap. II, p.46 et seq.

9 Not, as has been said with more ingenuity than verity, from

Rosh Shibte Iehudah, chief of the tribes of Judah. Others,

transposing the letters of "Rashi," called him Yashar,

"the Just." He himself signed his name Solomon bar (not ben)

Isaac, or Berabi Isaac. Once he wrote his signature Solomon

of Troyes.

10 Since "lune," moon, in Hebrew "yerah," is contained in

"Lunel," a number of scholars coming from Lunel bore the

surname "Yarhi." The city, in fact, is sometimes called

"Jericho," as a result of that system of geographical

nomenclature to which we owe the name "Kiryat Yearim" for

Nimes (derived from the Latin nemus), and "Har" for

Montpellier, etc. Through an analogy, based not so much upon

the significance of the words as upon a sort of assonance,

Spain, France, and Britain in rabbinical literature received

the Hebrew names of Sefarad, Zarfat, and Rifat. Likewise the

city of Dreux is called Darom, and so on.

11 A spurious Rashi genealogy from Johanan ha-Sandlar was worked

out in Italy at the end of the seventeenth century. In

Appendix I is given a table of the connections and immediate

descendants of Rashi. In chap. XII, p.212 et seq.

there are references concerning some of his later and more

doubtful descendants.

12 For this passage, see p.112.

13 See pp.61-2. Also Berliner, Aus dem Leben der deutschen

Juden. The data that follow are taken from the Kolbo,

the Mahzor Vitry, and other sources cited by Zunz,

Zur Geschichte, pp.167 et seq.

14 See p.81.

15 See Epstein, Die nach Raschi genannten Gebaude in

Worms.

16 This is the epoch which marks the arrival of Jews in Great

Britain. They went there, it seems, In the suite of William

the Conqueror (1066) - They always remained in touch with

their co-religionists on the Continent, and were sometimes

called by these "the Jews of the Island." For a while they

enjoyed great prosperity, which, joined to their religious

propaganda, drew upon them the hatred of the clergy.

Massacred in 1190, exploited and utterly ruined in the

thirteenth century, they were finally exiled in 1290.

17 See p.39.

18 Surnamed "Segan Leviya," supposed--doubtless incorrectly--to

have come originally from Vitry in Champagne. He was a very

conscientious pupil of Eliezer the Great. Died about 1070.

19 He is the author of the famous Aramaic poem read at the

Pentecost, beginning with the words Akdamot Millin.

He must not be confounded with his contemporary of the same

name, Meir ben Isaac (of Orleans?), to whom also some

liturgic poems are attributed. Another rabbi of Orleans,

Isaac ben Menahem (according to Gross, Gallia judaica,

pp.32-3, probably the father of Meir), was older than Rashi,

who quotes some of his Talmudic explanations, and some of the

notes written on his copy of the Talmud. There is nothing to

prove, as Gross maintains, that Rashi was his pupil. It is

not even certain that he knew him personally.

20 See p.77 for Rashi's relations to his teachers.

21 A Responsum signed by Rashi shows that he was the tutor of

the children of a certain Joseph, whose father had been

administrator of the community.

22 For a long time it was thought and said that once when Rashi

was sick, he dictated a Responsum to his daughter. As Zunz

was the first to show, this story about Rashi's secretary is

based upon the faulty reading of a text. Another legend

proved false! Science is remorseless. See Sefer ha-

Pardes, ed. Constantinople, 33d, where one must read,

<H>uleven bat (Vav Lamed Bet Final_Nun, Bet Tav)</H> not

<H>velajen biti (Vav Lamed Kaf Final_Nun, Bet Tav Yod)</H>

- See Zunz, Zur Geschichte, p.567, and Berliner,

Hebraische Bibliographie, XI; also,

Monatsschrift, XXI.

23 As has been shown (chap. II, p.51) Rashi may have begun to

write commentaries upon the Talmud during his sojourn In

Lorraine. However that may be, it is difficult to

dlstinguish in this huge production between the work of his

youth and that of his maturity or old age.

24 That is to say "very beautiful." It is a name frequently

borne by French Jewesses in the middle ages. Some give the

name of her husband as Ephraim. In chap. XI, pp.187 et

seq. the sons-in-law and grandchildren of Rashi will

receive further consideration. See also Appendix I.

25 According to Jacob Molin ha-Levi, called Maharli, rabbi of

Mayence, later of Worms, where he died in 1427. Christian

marriages bore many points of resemblance to Jewish

marriages. See the work of Lecoy de la Marche, La chaire

francaise au moyen-age.

26 See pp.165-6.

27 The economic influence of the Crusades has also been

exaggerated. The Crusaders in Palestine came into relations

with scarcely no other Turks than those but slightly

civilized, and thus saw little of the brilliant Arabic

civilization. The Jews certainly contributed more than the

Crusades to the development of commerce and the increase of

wealth.

28 According to a less popular form of the legend, Godfrey of

Bouillon disguised himself as a beggar, and obtained entrance

into Rashi's home by asking for alms. But the night before,

the visit of the lord had been announced to Rashi in a dream,

and on his approach Rashi arose and hailed him by the title

of hero. It was in this way that Joan of Arc recognized

Charles VII lost in the crowd of his courtiers.

29 See chap. VIII, pp.164 et seq. for further details.

The same chapter throws more light on Rashi's spiritual

nature.

30 Concerning this enigmatical kinsman of Rashi, see chap. XI,

pp.186-7.

31 See chap. VI, p.125.

32 The mistake arises from the fact that certain cursive writing

is called "Rashi script." It was generally employed in

copying rabbinical works, among others, the works of Rashi.

The term indicates the wide popularity enjoyed by the works

of Rashi.

33 See p.45.

34 See chap. VI, p.105.

35 The Megillat Taanit is a collection of ephemerides or

calendars, indicating the days on which happy events

occurred, and on which it is forbidden to fast. The little

work, written in Aramaic, but enlarged by Hebrew glosses, is

attributed by the Talmud to Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Garon,

or Gorion (first century); the nucleus about which the book

was built up seems to go back as far as Maccabean times.

36 See Note 94.

37 Collection of texts not incorporated in the Mishnah, the

order of which is followed, now to explain it, now to

complement it, and sometimes to contradict it. The redaction

of the Tosefta is attributed to R. Hiyyah bar Abba (third

century).

38 When the aim of the Midrash is to interpret the legal and

ritual portions of the Pentateuch, it is called Halakic; it

is Haggadic when its aim is to interpret the narrative and

moral portions (see chap. VI, p.107) - The Halakic Midrashim

nevertheless contain much Haggadah. The redaction of the

Mekilta, the commentary on Exodus, is attributed to R.

Ishmael; that of the Sifra, or Torat Kohanim, the commentary

on Leviticus, to R. Judah ben Ilai; that of the Sifre, the

commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy, to R. Simon ben Yohai

and to the school of Rab, all scholars of the second and

third centuries. The Sifra that Rashi employed was more

complete than the one now available, and he cites a second

Sifre, at present unknown.

39 The Midrash Rabba, or Rabbot, consists of Haggadic

compilations on the Pentateuch and the Five Rolls; the

elements of this Midrash are comparatively ancient, but its

definite redaction without doubt does not go farther back

than the eighth century. Rashi did not know those portions

of the Midrash Rabba which explain the Books of Exodus and

Numbers.

40 By this name are designated Haggadic collections for various

distinguished times and seasons of the year. There are two

Pesiktas, the Pesikta attributed to R. Kahana, a Babylonian

Talmudist, though its redaction falls in the seventh century,

and the Pesikta Rabbati, or Great Pesikta, doubtless compiled

in Southern Italy in the ninth century. Rashi knew the first

of these collections; and his citations aided Zunz in the

reconstruction he made of this Midrash before the discovery

of a manuscript by Buber confirmed his clear-sighted

suppositions.

41 Name of a Midrash on the Pentateuch, redacted by the pupils

of R. Tanhuma. Quite recently the endeavor was made to prove

that Rashi did not know the Tanhuma either in the current

text or in the more extended text published by Buber in 1885,

and that he called Tanhuma the Midrash Yelamdenu, which is

lost, and which is said to be the prototype of the two

versions of the Tanhuma. See Grunhut, in Festschrift

Berliner, pp.156-63.

42 A Midrashic compilation, partly mystic in character, of the

eighth century, but attributed to the Tanna R. Eliezer ben

Hyrkanos the Great.

43 Collection in three "gates," relating to history, especially

to Biblical chronology. Its redaction is commonly attributed

to R. Jose ben Halafta (second century).

44 Sherira bar Hananiah, Gaon of Pumbedita, about 930-1000, a

scholar of great activity, who left Responsa. The one

bearing upon the chronology of the Talmudic and Gaonic

periods is the chief source for the history of those times.

45 Hai Gaon, born about 940, collaborator, then successor, of

his father. He wrote much, and his reputation reached

Europe. Philosopher, scholar, didactic poet, and commentator

of the Bible, he left authoritative Responsa, Talmudic

commentaries, collections of rabbinical jurisprudence, and a

Hebrew dictionary, which has been lost.

46 Aha or Ahai of Shabha wrote, about 760, one hundred and

ninety-one Sheeltot (Questions), casuistic homilies,

connected with the Five Books of Moses.

47 Yehudai bar Nahman, Gaon of Sura (about 759 or 762), eminent

Talmudist and adversary of the Karaites. He wrote Responsa

and possibly the Halakot, a collection of legal and ritual

rules. He is said to have been blind.

48 Isaac Abrabanel was possibly the only Jew who unmasked

Josephus and revealed his lies and flatteries. Judah Sir

Leon (see chap. XI, p.194) recognized that Kalir was not

identical with the Tanna Eleazar ben Simon.

49 Of Tahort, Northern Africa. He lived at the end of the ninth

century and the beginning of the tenth.

50 See chap. VI, p.127 and Note 91.

51 Exception can scarcely be made in favor of the preamble to

the Song of Songs and the shorter one to Zechariah. In the

one he briefly characterizes the Haggadic method; in the

other he speaks of the visions of Zechariah, which, he says,

are as obscure as dreams.

52 At the end of the gloss the explanations of Menahem ben Saruk

and Dunash ben Labrat are reproduced. This is without doubt

a later addition. For these two Spanish grammarians, see Note

91.

58 Evidently it was not Rashi who commented on the work of

Alfasi, his contemporary. It was a German Jew, who abridged

the commentary of the French rabbi in order to make it

harmonize with the work of the illustrious Spanish Talmudist.

For several treatises the German Jew had more authentic texts

than are now available. He sometimes cites Rashi by name.

See J. Perles, Die Berner Handschrift des kleinen

Aruch, in Jubelschrift Graetz, 1887.

54 See Note 53.

55 The Gallo-Roman dialects are divided into two groups, the

dialects of the langue d'oc (southern) and those of the

langue d'oil (northern). It was Dante who introduced this

somewhat irrational distinction based upon the different ways

of saying "yes," that is, oc and oil (Latin,

hoc and ille).

56 In the middle of the eleventh century, it must be added,

differences between neighboring dialects were not yet very

pronounced.

57 James Darmesteter, Introduction to the Reliques

scientifiques, of his brother Arsene Darmesteter (Paris,

1890), vol. I, p. XVIII.

58 Eliezer ben Nathan, of Mayence (about 1145), correspondent of

Meir and of his sons Samuel and Jacob, author of the work

Eben ha-Ezer, whence the passage quoted has been taken

(Pp.107, p.36a).

59 The Persian word Parshandata, name of one of the sons

of Haman, was divided into Parshan and data,

"expounder of the Law." This epithet is applied to Rashi in

the poem attributed to Ibn Ezra, cited in chap. XI, p.207.

60 Rashi seems also to have known about the Targum of the

Pseudo-Jonathan upon the Pentateuch. See Note 72.

61 Concerning the development of Biblical studies in general,

among Jews as well as Christians, see pp.127 et seq.

62 L. Wogue, Histoire de la Bible et de l'exegese

biblique, p.250.

63 See p.38. This Midrash is taken from the Tanhuma.

64 Psalms cxi. 6. Rashi cites the Biblical verses themselves,

often only in part; but he did not know the division of the

Bible into chapters and verses, which was made at a later day

and was of Christian origin. Sometimes Rashi cites a verse

by indicating the weekly lesson in which it occurs, or by

giving the paragraph a title drawn from its contents, or from

the name of the hero of the narrative.

65 Proverbs viii. 22.

66 Jeremiah ii. 3.

67 The rule, however, has exceptions. Even according to Rashi's

opinion, the word is in the absolute in Dent. xxxiii. 21 and

Is. xlvi. 10. It is true that strictly speaking one might

say the exceptions are only apparent.

68 "We will praise and we will celebrate."

69 For the meaning of this expression, see p.107. The source

here is still the Talmudic treatise Sanhedrin 91b.

70 Rashi here cites Is. xiv. 25, inaccurately.

71 Here Rashi might have cited also I Kings xii. 17.

72 This interpretation, taken without doubt from Pseudo-Jonathan

(see Note 60), explains the demonstrative pronoun. What

follows is taken from the Mekilta (see Note 38).

73 In fact the Targum translates it, "I will build Him a

temple."

74 Still according to the Mekilta. The Song of Songs is often

applied by Jewish exegetes to the events of the Exodus from

Egypt.

75 The French laaz is corrupted in the editions. The

reading should be <H>peri shnt Pe Resh Yod, Shin Noon

followed by gershayim Samech</H>.

76 Name of the last portion of Exodus. Rashi alludes to Ex.

xxxviii. 27.

77 Without doubt the murex, which gives the purple dye. The

details are taken from the Talmud (treatise Menahot 44a at

the top).

78 A fantastic bit of etymology taken from the Talmud.

79 Ex. xxvii. 20.

80 Next to last portion of Exodus (xxx. 22 et seq.).

81 Portion preceding next to last of Exodus.

82 Ex. xxviii. 6.

83 lb. and 15. The first of these passages is

noteworthy, Rashi says about It: "If I tried to explain how

these two objects are made according to the text, the

explanation would be fragmentary, and the reader would not

get an idea of the whole. So I will first give a complete

description of them, to which the reader can refer. After

that I will explain the text verse by verse. The ephod

resembles the robe worn by the Amazons,'" etc.

84 L. Wogue.

85 This is a distinction made in Hebrew but not rendered in the

English version.

86 I Sam. xxiii. 14.

87 And not "shadow of death," which is etymologically

impossible, though it is a rendition employed by most

commentators.

88 See Note 91.

89 Collection of Midrashim long attributed to Simon Kara, father

of a disciple of Rashi. This valuable compilation, which

deals with the entire Bible, dates without doubt from the

first half of the thirteenth century. An unsuccessful

attempt has been made to prove that Rashi knew the

Yalkut. His silence shows, on the contrary, that it

was a later work. The Simon (sometimes Simson) whom he

quotes is not the author of the Yalkut.

90 Commentary on Gen. xxxvii. 1.

91 Menahem ben Saruk, of Tortosa, lived at Cordova about 960

with the celebrated minister and Maecenas, the Jew Hasdai Ibn

Shaprut. He was the author of the Mahberet, one of

the first complete lexicons of the Biblical language, full of

interesting grammatical digressions.

His rival, Dunash ben Labrat, born at Fez, was both poet and

grammarian. He wrote "Refutations" against Menahem, in rhyme

and prose, which were full of impassioned criticisms and

abundantly displayed fresh, correct insight. The polemics of

these two scholars were continued by their disciples and were

ended by Jacob Tam, Rashi's grandson.

92 Abul-Walid Merwan ibn Djanah (among the Jews, R. Jonah), the

most eminent representative of the Spanish school, born at

Cordova about 985; he studied at Lucena, and died at

Saragossa about 1050. Besides small polemic works, he left a

long one, "The Book of Detailed Research," including a

grammar and a dictionary. Ibn Dianab was an original and

profound grammarian. Unfortunately his disciples in

popularizing weakened him.

Judah ben David (Abu Zakaria Yahia lbn Dand) Hayyoudj, who

may be looked upon as the master of Djanah, was originally

from Fez but lived for the greater time at Cordova (end of

the tenth and beginning of the eleventh century). He

inspired remarkable disciples, among others the statesman

Samuel ha-Naggid Ibn Nagdela. He was the first to discover

the triliteral character of all Hebrew roots.

93 Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (1092-1167), born at Toledo, died

at Rome. He left Spain in about his fortieth year, and

travelled through Europe, reaching also Asia and Africa. The

European countries he visited are Italy, France, England, and

the Provence. It was on his second visit to Italy that he

died at Rome. He wrote for his living and by way of

compensation to his hosts. He was a philosopher, excellent

mathematician, clever poet, and highly subjective writer. In

the domain of philology he brought to the knowledge of

Christian Europe the works of his great predecessors, and if

he was not a very original grammarian, he was at least a

clear-sighted exegete. His Biblical commentaries are held in

high esteem.

Concerning Rashi and Ibn Ezra see also chap. XI, pp.206-7,

and chap. XII, p.220.

94 At this point I think it well to give once for all a summing

up of Talmudic literature. The Talmud is the united mass of

the documents and texts of the oral law. It comprises the

Mishnah and the Gemara, the latter being called also Talmud.

The Mishnah, a collection in six parts and forty-nine

treatises, is the work of numerous generations of scholars.

Its final redaction (setting aside somewhat later additions)

was made by Judah the Saint, or Rabbi (about 150-210). The

texts not incorporated by Rabbi are called Baraitas. The

Gemara is the commentary and the development of the Mishnab,

which it follows step by step, in discussing it and

completing its statements. There are two Gemara collections:

one elaborated in Palestine under the influence of R. Johanan

(199-279) and terminated toward the end of the fourth

century, which Is called the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud;

the other drawn up in Babylonia under the influence of Rab

and of Samuel (third century), and brought to a conclusion

about 500 through the initiative of R. Ashi and his

disciples; this Is called the Babylonian Talmud. The latter

covers the greater part of the Mishnah. It is by far the

more important of the two Talmuds from the juridic point of

view, and it is the one that has been the chief subject of

studies and commentaries. The Talmud comprises two elements:

the Halakah, "rule of conduct," legislation, and the

Haggadah, "exposition," which embraces non-Halakic exegesis,

history, legend, profane learning, etc. The scholars whose

discussions are given in the Mishnah are called Tannaim, and

those who figure only in the Gemara, Amoraim.

95 See Appendix II, pp.232-4.

96 See p.91.

97 Hananel ben Hushiel, of Kairnan, first half of the eleventh

century, commented upon the Talmud and the Pentateuch.

98 This false notion gained currency through the existence of

Responsa addressed by Nathan to a certain Solomon ben Isaac:

but this Solomon is an Italian. See Vogelstein and Rieger,

Geschichte der Juden in Rom, I, pp.366 et seq.

For further Information concerning Nathan ben Jehiel, see

Note 121. With regard to recurring names for different

individuals - the plague of Jewish literature - it should be

said that a French rabbi named Solomon ben Isaac lived about

a century after Rashi, who corresponded with R. Tam. He has

been confounded with his illustrious predecessor of the same

name. See Gross, Gallia judaica, p.34. Buber,

Introduction to the Sefer ha-Orah, p.13.

99 See Notes 37 and 38.

100 Another name for the Sadduceans, from their chief Boethus

(first century of the Common Era)

101 Psalm lxxxi. 5, which refers to the new moon. Now, in every

case at least two witnesses are necessary.

102 Lev. xxiii. 40.

103 Ex. xv. 2.

104 "And shalt burn with fire the city" (Deut. xiii. 16).

105 Sukkah 32b. These references placed In parentheses in

Rashi's commentary are the work of the printers, who adopted

the conventional division into folios. Rashi refers only to

the treatise or chapter, at most simply saying "above," or

"below."

106 It is the Latin "scopac."

107 Mal. i. 13.

108 Lev. i. 2.

109 Is. lxi. 8.

110 A city of Judea, called also Tower of Simon.

111 Fifth chapter of Hullin, 79a.

112 The French toile, curtain.

113 Concerning Hananel, see Note 97. R. Isaac b. Jacob alFasi

(the initials form Rif) was born in 1013 near Fez, whence his

name. In 1088 he went to Spain, where he directed the

important school of Lucena. He died in 1103, lamented by all

his fellow-citizens. Besides Responsa, he left the "Halakot,"

or "Little Talmud," which Is a pruning down of the entire

Talmud, so as to present only what is useful for establishing

the norm, deduced by Alfasi himself. It is an important

work, which still enjoys great authority. I have already

remarked (Note 53) that the Rashi commentary was abridged to

make it fit the text of Rif.

114 In these words Rashi displaces another lesson.

115 Parasang is a Persian measure equivalent to 5250 metres

[meters sic], a fact of which Rashi seems to have been

ignorant.

116 According to Hagigah 13a.

117 In the first case it refers to Ahriman, the spirit of evil,

in the second, to Ormuzd, the spirit of good among the

Persians. Lillit in Oriental mythology is a female demon,

who wanders at night and attacks chiefly children.

118 Isaac ben Judah, his master par excellence. Concerning

Rashi's teachers see chap. I, p.29; chap. II, pp.49 et

seq.; chap. III, p.58, etc.

119 Dan. iii. 1.

120 David Ibn Abi Zimra (Radbaz), rabbi of Cairo, who died, it is

said, at Safed in 1589 at the age of 110 years. He left an

Important collection of Responsa.

121 Nathan ben Jehiel, of Rome, born about 1035, died In the

first years of the twelfth century, author of the Aruk, a

highly valued Talmudic dictionary, In which he explains the

words of Talmudic and Midrasbic literature, as well as the

Halakic and Haggadic passages presenting difficulties. The

numerous quotations are no less valuable than the

explanations. Concerning Alfasi, see Note 113.

122 Quoted from Bezalel Ashkenazl, who lived In Egypt (died in

1530). He compiled a Talmudic collection called Shitta

Mekubezet, in which he gathered together extracts from

French, Spanish, and other rabbis. Before him Isaac ben

Sheshet (see Note 150) had said: "The greatest light that has

come to us from France is Rashi. Without his commentary, the

Talmud would be a closed book" (Responsa, No.394).

123 Menahem ben Zerah (about 1312-1385), son of a Jew expelled

from France, wrote in Spain a Talmudic manual entitled

Zedah la-Derek.

124 ConcernIng Rashi's correspondents see chap. II, pp.51-2, and

chap. III, p.57.

125 See chap. I, p.20, and chap. III, p.56.

126 See chap. III, p.67.

127 And not, as has been supposed, that of Cavaillon, In the

county Venaissin, where, possibly, there were not yet any

Jews, and where, at all events, Rashi was not known, as was

the case throughout the south of France, until after his

death.

128 An application, according to the Talmud, of Eccl. ii. 14.

129 This resume is taken from Epstein on Shemaiah, in

Monatsschrift, XLI, also that of Sefer ha-Orah.

Concerning the Machirites, see chap. I, p.29, and chap. II,

p.52; concerning Shemaiah, chap. XI, pp.186-7. The three

communities are sometimes called by the initials of their

names, "communities of Shum" <H>shum (Shin followed by

gershayim Vav followed by gershayim Final_Mem)</H>

In connection with the Sefer ha-Pardes must be

mentioned the work bearing the title of Likkute ha-

Pardes (Extracts from Paradise), a compilation edited in

Italy by the disciples of Isaiah da Trani.

130 See chap. IV, p.84.

131 L. Wogue, Histoire de la Bible et de l'exegese

biblique, pp.254-5.

131 See chap. IX, pp.171-2.

133 See p.162.

134 Rameru, or Ramerupt, situated six miles from Troyes on a

tributary of the Aube. Of old it formed an entire county,

proof of which is furnished by the ditches surrounding it and

the ruins of a castellated stronghold. At the present day it

is the chief city of the Departement de l'Aube.

135 The sort of literature designated by this word will be

defined later on, pp.191-2.

136 Chap. VI, p.125.

137 Concerning the Biblical exegesis of Samuel ben Meir see

pp.196-7.

138 See Note 91.

139 It has been said that "Tossafot" signifies "supplements to

Rashi;" this is not true, but it is noteworthy that the

expression Is open to such a misconstruction.

140 Dampierre on the Aube, at present part of the canton of

Rameru, counted, after the twelfth century, among the most

important lordships in the region.

141 The name "Morel," customary among English Jews, corresponds

to the Hebrew name "Samuel."

142 See pp.202-3.

143 The numeric value of the letters composing the word Gan in

Hebrew is 53, the number of Pentateuch lessons in the annual

cycle.

144 See chap. VII, pp.157-8.

145 Concerning Rashi and Ibn Ezra, see chap. VI, p.131.

146 David Kimhi (1160-1235), of Narbonne, a philosopher, a

follower of Maimonides, a grammarian, and an exegete, who

popularized the works of the Spaniards by his Biblical

commentaries, his grammar, and his dictionary. He enjoyed

and still enjoys a deserved reputation for clearness and

simplicity.

147 Moses ben Nahman, also called Bonastruc da Porta, born at

Gerona in 1195, was a Talmudist, Kabbalist, philosopher, and

physician. In 1263 he carried on a disputation at Barcelona

with the apostate Pablo Christiano. On this account he went

to live in Palestine, where he died in 1270. His was one of

the most original personalities in Spanish Judaism.

148 Solomon ben Abraham ben Adret (1235-1310), born at Barcelona,

rabbi and head of an influential school there. The extent of

his knowledge as well as his moderation won for him a wide

reputation, proof of which is afforded by his intervention as

arbiter in the quarrel between the partisans and the

adversaries of Maimonides, and by his numerous Responsa, of

which about three thousand have been published. Besides, he

wrote Talmudic commentaries and casuistic collections.

149 Asher ben Jehiel, disciple of Meir of Rothenburg, born about

1250, died in 1327 at Toledo, where he was rabbi. Besides

numerous and important Responsa he wrote Talmudic

commentaries and a compendium of the Talmud bearing his name.

150 His initials read Ribash (1336-1408). He exercised

rabbinical functions in several cities of Spain. After the

persecutions of 1391, he went to Algiers, where he was

appointed rabbi. He was well-informed in philosophy, but he

owes his great reputation chiefly to his Talmudic knowledge,

as is proved by his numerous Responsa.

151 Rashbaz, born in 1361 on Majorca, of a family originally from

the Provence. At first he practiced medicine, but, reduced

to poverty by the persecutions of 1391, he resigned himself,

not without scruples, to accepting the emoluments of a rabbi.

He died in 1444 at Algiers, where he had been the co-worker,

then the successor, of Ribash. He is known chiefly for his

commentaries and his Responsa. The passage in question is

taken from these Responsa, No.394. See also Note 122.

152 See chap. II, p.31, and chap. IV, p.80.

153 See chap. II, pp.31-2.

154 The daughter of Solomon Luria married a brother of the famous

Talmudist of Cracow, Moses Isserles (1530-1572) - I will add

that the families of Treves, Pollak, Heller, and

Katzenelienbogen also maintain that they are connected with

Rashi. On the descendants of Rashi, see Epstein,

Mishpahat Lurie we-Kohen-Zedek, In Ha-Goren, I,

Appendix.

155 See chap. II, p.37.

156 This defective edition was replaced by a good critical

edition by David Rosin (Breslan, 1881)

157 L. Wogue, Histoire de la Bible et de l'exegese

biblique, p.319.

158 Abraham Geiger, born in 1810 at Frankfort, died at Berlin in

1874, one of the finest Jewish scholars of the nineteenth

century. His prolific activity was exerted in all provinces

of Jewish history and literature. Besides works upon the

Talmud, the poets, the philosophers, and the exegetes of the

middle ages, he wrote numerous articles in two journals,

which he successively edited. Theologian and distinguished

preacher, he promoted the reform of the Jewish cult in

Germany.

159 Wolf Heidenheim (1757-1832), Talmudist, Hebrew scholar, and

editor. He deserves the sobriquet of the Henri Estienne of

Hebrew letters. The commentary in which he defends Rashi is

entitled Habanat ha-Mikra. Only the beginning, up to

Gen. xliii. 16, has appeared.

160 Isaac Hirsch Weiss (1815-1905), professor at the Bet ha-

Midrash of Vienna, wrote many studies scattered through two

literary magazines edited by him successively, and also an

Important History of Jewish Tradition, in five volumes.

161 Solomon Judah Rapoport, born in 1790, died rabbi of Prague in

1867. Together with Zunz, he was the founder of modern

Jewish science. A distinguished man of letters, he was known

above all for his biographies of celebrated rabbis, for

historic and archaeologic studies, and for an unfinished

encyclopedia.

162 Zechariah Frankel, born at Prague in 1801, after 1854

director of the Seminary at Breslau, where he died in 1875.

He left historic studies on the Mosaic-Talmudic law,

introductions to the Septuagint, the Jerusalem Talmud, and

the Mishnah, and numerous critical and historical works in

the Programs of the Seminary and in the Monatsschrift,

a magazine edited by him from 1851 on.

Even after the First Crusade, the situation of the jews of